Christensen introduces 'birther bill'

I guess Christensen has nothing better to do than chase shadows! Since when does "receiving two or three e-mails from constituents" constitute "a large amount of citizens who have doubts"? If my wife, my son and I email him stating that we think he's a nutjob, will he introduce a bill banning nutjobs from holding office? Sure would create a lot of vacancies!

Is Senator Christensen for real? With state government spending spiraling out of control, he gives us this? Way to go 44th district voters.

I found Obama's Kenya birth certificate that's right here: http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2009/09/another-kenyan-birth-certificate.html

Senator Christensen is to be thanked for introducing the bill. The only thing I find puzzling is Prof. Gruhl's comment. To have to prove one's right to hold office is neither difficult or burdensome.

A poll conducted by CNN found that about 60% of those polled were less than certain of Obama's birth circumstances.

In addition, many had questions about the birth circumstances of John McCain and about Roger Calero, who made it onto several presidential ballots even though he is not even a US citizen. All the lawsuits which sought to verify the eligibility status of these people - one democrat, one republican, and one communist - were turned away by the courts, which said nobody had standing to find out this information.

That is a problem for every side of the political aisle. It transcends politics and gets to the critical issue of whether our government is indeed answerable to us. If it is nobody's business whether the Constitution is kept, then we all lose. And if our government continuously tells us that government is none of our business, we have good reason to distrust what they tell us.

There ARE critical questions facing the country. To reach consensus on those questions and some level of sanity in our public discourse, we need to be able to trust the integrity of our system and the people within it. That is the highest priority, because without that we will only have more gridlock when we try to address other specific issues.

A letter I have written and posted at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/state-legislatorswhy-this-is-cri... discusses why this issue should be a priority right now.

Regarding Nebraska's birth certificates, the standards for getting a certified copy of a birth certificate (which is defined as the non-confidential portion of the standard birth certificate, which is filled out by the hospital, doctor, or attendant) are outlined in the NE HHS Administrative Rules, which are posted at http://www.sos.state.ne.us/rules-and-regs/regsearch/Rules/Health_and_Human_Servi... .

Though some states issue a certified abstract or short-form BC (Certification of Live Birth) when given a routine request, the administrative rules may allow disclosures of the original record upon specific request. And most state disclosure laws are patterned after FOIA which allows a person to access any non-law-enforcement records concerning him/herself upon request.

In the State of Hawaii, the official DOH website says they won't issue long-form birth certificates, but the Administrative Rules allow such disclosure and because the disclosure is allowed, Hawaii's Open Records Law (UIPA) REQUIRES that disclosure upon request. That is why there is video footage of a woman in the HDOH office ordering a certified long-form birth certificate and being told she would receive it in 2 weeks.

So the problem with receiving a long-form, original birth certificate for the most part involves making a specific request for it. Absent the specific request for a long-form, the short-form abstract is routinely sent out.

But just to make sure, this bill allows for a situation where a person simply cannot get a copy of the original long-form birth certificate. In that event a certified short-form abstract and an affidavit by the applicant saying that the parents on the short-form are the same ones listed on the long-form are accepted instead.

The one situation which would require extra effort is if the candidate knew he/she was adopted in a closed-adoption state, in which case the candidate would need to petition the court to unseal the original birth certificate.

If the person didn't know they were adopted they would have no indication that the BC they had was not the original and could submit the long-form and/or sign the affidavit in good conscience. The adoption would only become an issue if somebody challenged their eligibility in court and the records were required to be opened. And even then, the judge would be the one to decide whether the adoption had any bearing on the candidate's eligibility.

Obama voted for a Federal bill in 2005 to forces states to verify the validity of YOUR birth certificate with the issuing agency when you apply for a drivers license or ID card. The state of Hawaii, by law, already has a procedure for issuing a legal verification of birth certificates, so it would be no extra burden for them to verify the validity of Obama's birth certificate (if he ever provides a legitimate copy). There's no reason he cannot be subjected to the same standard as you or I.

Come on people! What is Obama paying that law firm for if not to HIDE his original long-form birth certificate? His sister, who was born in Indonesia, has the same C.O.L.B. from Hawaii which is being passed off as his "birth certificate." The Supreme Court should have ordered him to produce it. Thanks to Nebraska and other states, if he runs again, he will have to show it.

blah, blah, blah

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/kenyacert.asp

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/kagan.asp

bigdawg, if everything is in line and it is so crazy for anybody to have doubts, then what is the big problem with showing the documentation? This bill would provide the perfect opportunity for Obama to show that all is well and we could all go on our merry way.

Is that not what you want? If not, why not?

A "Natural Born Citizen," AS DEFINED BY THOSE WHO WROTE OUR FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, is a person whose parents are / were citizens of the united States of America at the time of the child's birth. The "professor" is being intellectually dishonest.

The intent of requiring NATURAL BORN was to prevent the influence of divided loyalties, where the child was a dual citizen. Under the Common Law, in effect at the time of the U.S. Constitution's ratification, it was an understood principle that citizenship was a quality automatically transmitted from the father to his paternity.

The issue resolves to the understanding in the difference between "NATIVE" born and "NATURAL" born. The distinction may at first appear frivolous, but it is a very important distinction.

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The catch phrase is: "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,"

It is not sufficient that a child be born in the United States, but that the child must ALSO be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. A foreign citizen is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. A child born on American soil to foreign born parents, who are NOT Naturalized American citizens, is not a "Natural Born" citizen, but rather a NATIVE born, and that child does NOT fall under the jurisdiction clause of the 14 Amendment, until, acting by its own volition, the child acts by a specified age to "elect" for American citizenship. The child must CHOOSE. However, under no such circumstance will the child ever be considered NATURAL BORN, but only NATURALIZED.

President Obama was a British citizen at the time of his birth. Having been born with dual nationality, he was born with a recognized allegiance to a foreign nation. This disqualifies him from being President. "Native born" is not "natural born" -- but then "accuracy and intelligent discussion is not the goal of propaganda."

***

In a 1904 article taken from the Albany Law Review article entitled, "Natural-Born Citizen of the United States: Eligibility for the Office of President," Alexander Porter Morse stated:

"If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, "no person, except a native-born citizen"; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase "native-born citizen" is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, "native citizen" should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are essential to intelligent discussion."

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=134881

Here is Mr. Morse's letter to the Albany Law Journal of December 18th, 1884:

"It seems to the undersigned, aside from judicial sanction, that the children of aliens born in the United States are, to use the language of Judge Cooley in another connection, " subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only in a much qualified sense; " until they take some steps submitting themselves to the jurisdiction..."

This letter was written in 1884 -- before 'Wong Kim Ark' was decided. The article quoted above, was written in 1904 -- after Wong Kim Ark. The historical evidence proves that Morse held the same point of view before and after Wong Kim Ark. The article and the letter both indicate clearly that Morse would not have agreed Barak Obama was eligible.

***

The legal opinion of Attorney Breckenridge Long --a lifetime Democrat:

Long was a graduate of Washington University Law School. He served as Secretary of State and the U.S. ambassador to Italy under President Franklin D Roosevelt. In an article, published in the "Chicago Legal News," Vol. 146, p. 220 in 1916,

"Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes a 'Natural Born Citizen' within the Meaning of the Constitution?

During his presidential campaign, Hughes's eligibility for the presidency was questioned because his father remained a British citizen. Long argued that a "native born citizen" of the US who is also born to a British father is not a "natural born citizen."

"Whether Mr. Hughes is, or is not, a "natural born" citizen within the meaning of the Constitution, so as to make him eligible, or ineligible, to assume the office of President, presents an interesting inquiry. He was born in this country and is beyond question "native born." But is there not a distinction "native born" and "natural born"? At the time he was born his father and mother were subjects of England. His father had not then been naturalized."

Long goes on to make the case that Hughes was not a natural born citizen:

"It is not disputed that Mr. Hughes is not a citizen of the United States, but if he had the right to elect, he must have had something to choose between. He was native born because he was born in this country, and he is now a native born citizen because he is now a citizen of this country; but, had he been a "natural born" citizen, he would not have had the right to choose between this country and England; he would have had nothing to choose between; he would have owed his sole allegiance to the government of the United States, and there would have been no possible question, whether he found himself in the United States or in any other country in the world, that he would be called upon to show allegiance to any Government but that of the United States."

However, Mr. Long failed to mention former President Chester Arthur. Had he known that Chester Arthur was also born to a British subject father, then he would have been forced to discuss that fact too--He did not. The general public didn't know Chester Arthur's father was a British subject when Chester was born until December 2008!

The New Englander And Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845) states:

"The expression 'citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term 'natural born citizen' is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states."

At the time of his birth, Barak Obama owed allegiance to Great Britain. That is not disputed; it is admitted by the President himself. This admission is the problem Barak Obama faces, should this issue ever reach the Supreme Court.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.

I get a hoot out of you people, he is the president and there is not thing 1 you can do about it.

Birthers, Truthers, Warmers and others, can't we all get along? After all, we are just sisters and brothers. The news gets worked up, we cant wait to point out our view. What makes sense to me, might be absurd to you. They print stories of pitt bulls, killer bees, mad cow

disease and more. Stories like Charlie Sheen running off to Las Vegas with a bag of cocaine and five ******. So kick back and relax, watch the super bowl today. All this hate and frustration will only make you grumpy and gray.

bidgawg, does it not bother you at all that we require more proof for a little boy to be a bench-sitter on a Little League team than we require for the person who holds the nuclear football that could blow away the whole world?

Doesn't that seem like a huge double standard to you? The requirement of lawfulness for the peons like you and me, and no accountability at all for the elites?

How does that in any way fit in with what America is all about?

So, snopes has it wrong?

wikipedia has it wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories

fact check has it wrong as well

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

It really dosent matter who has seen it as long as you have not had it presented to you to eximine you wont believe it.

hawaii has no "long form" or "short form", just 1 form.

Anyone that has a passport, has to send there real birth certificate in, not a copy, but your original birth certificate and an ID picture to get one. I did not have mine, and had to send to Nebraska for it. Now I'm not sure of the laws for senators, but you would think he would have had to show his passport when he was a senator, if he left the country.

I'm not arguing one way or the other, but maybe someone could do some research on this, then this might clear things up.

Keda46,

Congress members and President are issued diplomatic passports; past passports and documentation are not needed. And the requirement for a Senator is different than that for a President so it doesn't work to simply assume that if a person was able to be a Senator they also qualify as President.

There is no security check of any kind for elected officials; the election IS the "security check", as Nebraska's SOS, John Gale, told me before the 2008 election. I asked him if it concerned him that voters were supposed to conduct a security check even though they have no access to any official records. He said that the media would never let a politician get away with lying about something like that.

To receive a federal paycheck, people are supposed to have to give specific forms of documentation - just like my son would have to give to detassel for the summer. But the person who should have asked for that assumed that since Obama had been Senator that was already done, so it was never done. Everybody assumed somebody else had already done it.

This is actually one of the reasons that experts in document fraud, including the IG for HHS, says that multiple documents and their provenance must be required to prove a specific claim - because once a person has been able to use a false record to get a genuine record they can go back and get all genuine records to hide that it all began with a fraudulent record.

See http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-99-00570.pdf .

Another interesting article about that is at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=122427

At http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/philip-j-berg-lawsuit-obamacrimesco... there is a conversation with an FBI person about security clearances. Here's the transcribed conversation. This is a conversation between the Special Agent-in-Charge C. Frank Figliuzzi of the Cleveland FBI and Mike Trivisonno on the Mike Trivisonno Show, WTAM 1100, 7/02/08, Hr. 2:

Caller -- Do they perform background checks on candidates and fellows who are in Congress and the Senate and perhaps potential presidential candidates?.

FBI -- The short answer is no, no we don't, but they're given top secret clearances because they're members of Congress, or Senators, or even higher ranking officials.

Host -- Time out. There are no background checks from the FBI on the people that lead the country, the United States of America?.

FBI -- Let me emphasize, elected officials. This is a democracy, the people have elected an official to represent them in Washington, and we do not routinely run background checks on those people.

Host -- Even people running for president of the United States of America?.

FBI -- That's correct.

Host -- That's a little weird

Another link confirming there is no security check is at http://www.usconstitution.net/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=debarch08;action=display;num=1... .

bigdawg, Hawaii does indeed have long-form and short-form birth certificates. Their Administrative Rules refer to them as standard and abbreviated birth certificates. You can see that at http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/8%208A%20B%20VR%20Admin%20Rules.pd... Chapter 8b is the one currently in effect. And in fact any person is supposed to be able to get a non-certified copy of any Hawaii abbreviated birth certificate - but Hawaii is not obeying its laws and rules.

This issue is really not about Obama at all, but since you brought it up you should know that the Hawaii Department of Health has indirectly confirmed in 2 different ways now (through official communications) that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery. You can see more about that at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/the-summary-cnn-doesnt-want-you-....

And HI Governor Neil Abercrombie told Mike Evans that his people had gone into the hospitals with a search warrant and had not found any birth certificate. (the link to the audio and the transcript of the conversation are at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/evans-abercrombie-hospital-searc... ). Why would he have looked at the hospitals for a birth certificate if the HDOH has an "original birth certificate" as HDOH Director Chiyome Fukino said back in October of 2008?

So we've got HI officials indirectly acknowledging that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery - while the HDOH claims they can't disclose ANYTHING about a BC, implying they can't even reveal if a claimed BC is actually a forgery. We've got the HDOH indirectly confirming that what they do have for Obama was amended in 2006 and is thus not legally valid - a point they didn't bother to mention when they said they have "vital records verifying that Obama was born in Hawaii". They have a legally non-valid record which claims Obama was born in Hawaii, according to their own official responses.

The documentation for all this is at my blog. You can start at the link above, or at my start page at http://www.butterdezillion.wordpress.com .

Like I said, this bill is not about Obama at all. It is about making sure that the provisions of the Constitution are actually interpreted and then applied, without everybody assuming somebody else is doing it. But if you want to talk about Obama as a side issue you may regret bringing it up, since Abercrombie and the HDOH have already revealed that Hawaii has no long-form BC for Obama, the Factcheck COLB is in fact a forgery, and what HI actually DOES have for Obama is not legally valid.

When a person knows those facts, it suddenly makes sense why Obama's lawyers will fight with all their might a common-sense law that makes sure that presidential qualifications are actually documented just like any Little League ball player has to document his eligibility.

Just like I said, everyone else is wrong and you are right, good job. I played little league and I did not have to present any documents.

Keep in mind that Hawaii didn't become a state until August, 1959. It is assumed by many that Hawaii was in full compliance with legal forms prior to and immediately after statehood which probably is not the case. It very well could be that the long form documents for Obama and his parents do not exist just because they were not a requirement at the time.

BuffRoam,

Hawaii law - both during the territorial period and during statehood - has always required their Department of Health to include on their certificates AT LEAST the minimum requirements of the national standard certificates. The CDC's 1961 Natality Report has in the appendix at the end the standard birth certificate, which is either exactly or almost exactly the same as the long-form birth certificates that have been posted for the Nordyke twins, who were born one day after Obama at the hospital it's claimed Obama was born in. They had no problems finding the long-form birth certificates for the Nordyke twins.

And in fact the Nordyke twins' long-form birth certificates are part of the reason we know that Obama's Factcheck COLB is a forgery. The HDOH has said that the certificate numbers for Oahu births were always given at the HDOH office on the "date filed". But the Factcheck COLB has a "date filed" 3 days earlier than the Nordyke BC's - but a certificate number later (higher) than theirs. The certificate number and "date filed" on the Factcheck COLB are not compatible with each other, according to the Nordyke birth certificates.

Wow, with this knowledge you can blow the roof of this thing. I expect obama to no longer be president tommorow.

If we had the rule of law this would have been resolved a long, long time ago. That's why this is not about Obama at all. This is about the rule of law.

Thank you butterdezillion for the information.

You're very welcome, Keda46. =)

Doesn't Christensen and others have better things to worry about? Like jobs, economy, roads, education?

GET OVER IT AND GET ON WITH TAKING CARE OF MORE PRESSING THINGS IN THIS COUNTRY!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/kenyacert.asp

Rural Citizen, here are some reasons why this issue is critical:

1. National security. There is no security clearance for POTUS and VP. The vote itself is the only vetting done, and voters have no access to official records. Unresolved questions about eligibility mean that any person or foreign government that has incriminating records can blackmail the person who holds the nuclear football, appoints SCOTUS justices, cabinet members, and unaccountable "czars", makes executive orders, and has the power to veto anything our elected officials pass .

2. Frustration of legitimate state government functions. There is no legal definition of "natural born citizen" and the courts are evading any cases which would require the definition to be resolved. This means that nobody in this country can say for sure whether someone is eligible. Leo Donofrio challenged the eligibility of 3 Presidential candidates in NJ -- McCain (who was born in Panama), Obama (whose father was not a US citizen), and Roger Calero (a green card holder born in Nicaragua) -- all of whom were placed on the ballot without any records being checked, even though NJ requires their SOS to "verify Constitutional eligibility". The issue has been raised by both sides of the political aisle; this transcends politics and extends far beyond one particular election.

We have a slate of young political leaders who come from a variety of situations, and this issue is only going to get more complicated if we don't resolve the questions BEFORE it becomes a referendum on a particular candidate. It is unfair to ask our Secretary of State, Congress, or the chairs of the DNC and RNC to decide who is eligible, when they are not authorized to interpret the Constitution and have no ruling on the definition by those who ARE supposed to interpret the Constitution. Having 50 different Secretaries of State decide for themselves what the definition is will present a chaotic situation. We clearly need a SCOTUS ruling on the definition of "natural born citizen".

The definition at the time of the Founders was not just "a citizen at birth" (as would later be governed by the 14th Amendment), but was given in Vattel's "Law of Nations" as someone born of citizen parents on US soil. George Washington (who chaired the Constitutional Convention) just two years after the Constitution was ratified signed the Naturalization Act of 1790 which extended "natural born citizenship" to those born OUTSIDE the country to two citizen parents -- making parents' citizenship the ONLY criteria for natural born citizenship. (Not surprisingly, the founders relied on "Law of Nations" enough that Ben Franklin bought 5 English-language copies for himself; George Washington checked it out of the library and never returned it. As a professor, Barack Obama cited "Law of Nations" as one of the prevailing legal sources for the Founders.) The Constitutional requirement is that the President be a "natural born citizen", so an eligibility law should seek to fulfill that requirement.

3. Denial of the people's First Amendment right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances". The only civilians the courts allow to challenge either a candidate's eligibility or bureaucrats' refusal to do their legally-required duties (such as in NJ, referenced above) are those the court thinks would "probably" win the election. Donofrio and all others who have sued -- including another candidate and an elector -- have been denied "standing". When the entire citizenry is told they don't have standing they are being told it is none of their business if the Constitution is followed or not. In a form of government which is critically dependent on accountability from a vigilant citizenry, that situation is literally a death sentence for America.

4. That refusal to allow real accountability creates a dangerous, toxic situation where government is distrusted, conspiracy theories abound because there is nobody who is trusted for accurate information, and the nation is split into violently polarized factions. Over the weekend David Gregory pushed very hard to get Eric Cantor to label as "crazy" the 60% or so of Americans who aren't confident that Obama was born in America. After all the talk about softening the rhetoric we still have 60% of Americans being demonized by the media, and politicians caught between the agenda of the media and the very real anger and frustration of the American public. That's not healthy for anybody -- least of all the country as a whole.

Right now a decorated military surgeon is sitting in jail with his family's livelihood and $800,000 of his own money gone, rather than being in Afghanistan where he wants to be, helping to heal our wounded warriors of wounds like Gabrielle Giffords' -- all because in over a year of asking his leaders for assurances that the Commander in Chief was truly compliant with the Constitution he swore to protect and defend, he could not find even ONE leader who would take the issue seriously -- including his Congressman and the Commander in Chief. What message does that give our military officers who make those oaths? What message does that give our wounded heroes in Afghanistan?

Presenting proof of eligibility is something every teenager who wants to detassel corn has to do, but the media contends it is "crazy" if people want the United States President to have to do the same. It feels like an alternate universe to many who feel like the country they know and love is slipping away, where there is one set of laws for the people and another set -- that no one can even enforce -- for the ruling class. As if the ruling class is "untouchable" by legitimate means of legal accountability. The government needs the goodwill of the American people, and they are not going to get it by mocking the deepest-held convictions that we all supposedly share in the Constitution.

Divided we fall. That's why this issue matters so much.

And yet we have so many people in America still homeless, our education is falling behind other countries, our infrastructures are crumbling, companies need to start re-hiring for our economy to get back on track, AND YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT A PIECE OF PAPER? Sounds to me like they need to be focused on something a little more important and more direct to the people that vote them in!

Rural Citizen, a million dollar bill is a piece of paper. The US Constitution is a piece of paper.

If you can't see that a piece of paper can represent integrity and trust which makes all the difference in the world, then I'm sorry but I don't think I can help you.

So, do you believe he was born in hawaii? Do you believe that he has produced his birth cert. to the people who matter? Do you personally need to see it?

Rural Citizen, are you aware that Obama has been so "WORRIED ABOUT A PIECE OF PAPER" that he has spent lots of taxpayer money on lawyers(that could have fed lots of poor children instead) and sent a decorated military officer to prison rather than simply show that piece of paper?

If it's such a piddly thing, just show the dang paper, pass the dang law, and be done with it. Why the big hassle?

We all know why the big hassle. I've documented it on my blog. According to HI Gov Abercrombie and the Hawaii Department of Health Obama doesn't have that legally-valid piece of paper, and lots of people inside and outside the government have been committing crimes to hide that fact. And THAT is more important than a "piece of paper". That is what is at stake here. The rule of law. Without it we are no different than Iran with its lawless dictator who does whatever he wants to the peons beneath him.

Ronald Reagan - who we are now told Obama has always admired and wanted to emulate - said, "Trust, but verify." That's a reasonable stance, which is why the government regularly requires people to show documentation of this or that. Think IRS. I dare you to tell the IRS your W-2 is just a piece of paper and they have to solve homelessness before you'll give them a peek. lol

bigdawg,

Gov Abercrombie and the HDOH have revealed that there is no long-form birth certificate for Obama in Hawaii, the Factcheck COLB is a forgery, and what they have for Obama is not legally valid since it was amended in 2006.

The HDOH has also disclosed that nobody from the Democratic National Committee nor the Hawaii Democratic Party has ever even asked to see his records or to receive a letter of verification of his birth facts or parentage (again, this is documented at my blog through official HDOH communications).

The HDP was so eager to get rid of their Cert of Nomination's standard language certifying Constitutional eligibility that they took out a whole line of text including the only thing they were legally required to say. And Pelosi signed an oath saying he was Constitutionally eligible without ever even checking out any documentation.

Those people are the only people that Nebraska required to do ANYTHING to check eligibility, and those stewards of the public trust didn't even ask to see the records. Dare I say it - Nancy Pelosi figured we'd have to pass the bill/President so we could see what's in it (even though she swore an oath that she knew Obama was Constitutionally eligible, without evan asking for any documentation). What happened with this issue is exactly the same kind of crap sandwich as these politicians have been feeding us for a long, long time. They have nothing but contempt for our trust and for the rule of law.

So did the people who were supposed to see his records actually do so? Absolutely not. They never even asked. And if they HAD asked there would have been nothing HI could have given them that would have satisfied the legal requirements.

As I've said before, this is not about Obama. This is about the rule of law. I don't care where Obama was born. I care that nobody is allowed to swear to protect and defend the US Constitution as Commander-in-Chief without first submitting to the requirements of that Constitution. The people of this nation - including those who put their lives and limbs on the line every day fighting America's enemies - deserve nothing less than that. Some will give their life for this nation. But the Commander-in-Chief can't give a piece of paper? It's unconscionable.

At this point, there are more pressing things America is in trouble with. Don't you think that if every Senator or Representative would focus on those "more pressing" things instead of a piece of paper, then we'd be able to get back to being number one? IT'S CALLED PRIORITIES! I believe helping our children, homeless, shelters, is more important right now.

Rural Citizen,

Barack Obama didn't think "helping our children, homeless, shelters, is more important right now".

He could have shown the documentation that he claims he has and been done with it - gone on to help on all those more important issues instead of spending taxpayer money on lawyers fighting dozens of lawsuits. Doesn't it bug you that he put this silly issue above helping people? What does that say about him and his priorities?

The legislature could pass this bill in 2 seconds flat and go on to do all that stuff you talk about. Would you support that? Just do it quick so it doesn't take time away from other things?

You've been browbeating this for over 2 years. 2 seconds? HA

I was quite shocked to read this in a post to the Gazette regarding Sen. Christensen's bill to require long-form birth certificates for parents of presidential candidates.

"And HI Governor Neil Abercrombie told Mike Evans that his people had gone into the hospitals with a search warrant and had not found any birth certificate. (the link to the audio and the transcript of the conversation are at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/201..."

All my life, I had never even thought of a search warrant being connected to anything other than a criminal investigation. So I looked into a couple of on-line law dictionaries, and this is what I found:

http://www.answers.com/topic/search-warrant

search warrant: West's Encyclopedia of American Law

A court order authorizing the examination of a place for the purpose of discovering contraband, stolen property, or evidence of guilt to be used in the prosecution of a CRIMINAL action.

A search warrant is a judicial document that authorizes police officers to search a person or place to obtain evidence for presentation in CRIMINAL prosecutions. Police officers obtain search warrants by submitting affidavits and other evidence to a judge or magistrate to establish probable cause to believe that a search will yield evidence related to a CRIME. If satisfied that the officers have established probable cause, the judge or magistrate will issue the warrant.

http://legaldefinition.us/search-warrant.html

(Law Depot)

Search warrant: An order signed by a judge that directs owners of private property to allow the police to enter and search for items named in the warrant. The judge won't issue the warrant unless she has been convinced that there is probable cause for the search -- that reliable evidence shows that it's more likely than not that a CRIME has occurred and that the items sought by the police are connected with it and will be found at the location named in the warrant.

These definitions fit my lifelong understanding of the use of search warrants, and directly contradict what Butterdezillion posted. Readers, please don't take Butterdezillion's word without checking it out. Lawyers, can you help me out, by confirming or denying that my understanding of the law, and these definitions, are correct?

Madisonian,

I gave the words straight from Mike Evans' mouth as he related what Neil Abercrombie had told him.

Listen for yourself. From the Jan 20, 2011 broadcast of "Austin's Morning News" AKA "Mark, Ed, and Sgt. Sam Show", at 590KLBJ.com. Starting at 7:45 at http://media.590klbj.com/Podcasts/133/01-20-11-_Hour_2.mp3 .

The transcript is at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/evans-abercrombie-hospital-searc...

Your gripe is not with me but with Abercrombie or with Mike Evans. I stated my source outright.

My claim all along is that there are so many discrepancies in the various stories that a full legal investigation is in order.

What the heck. I'll go ahead and post the transcript here so everybody can see it all in one place:

Mike Evans: This is a uh, not a Hollywood nugget but is is so important I had to bring it to the table. Former United States Congressman from Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie, has been a friend of mine for decades. When I spent time with Neil during the Obama inauguration in Washington, DC, uh, Neil told me that he was gonna run for governor of Hawaii. Neil also told me that when he was in college in Hawaii he was a friend of Obama's dad. And he remembered Barach -- he called him Barry -- when he was a kid. He's actually a very good friend of the President. Neil promised that when he became governor he was gonna cut through all the red tape and gonna get Obama's birth certificate and once and for all end this stupid controversy.

Announcer: Uh-huh.

Evans: Ye, Yesterday I talked to Neil. Said that he searched everywhere using all of his power as governor, looking at Kapiolani Women and Children's Hospital and Queens Medical Center, where children were born back in that day. And he said, "Mike, there is no Barack Obama cer, birth certificate."

Announcer: He's a foreigner! We knew it from the start!

Announcer #2: Well, I thought, I thought the holder of the certificate said it was locked up and she had seen it.

Evans: Well, the governor w, demanded to see it, went to the hospital, sent all of his people, a search warrant, and he could not get it. Uh, there, he's really good friends to the President but he says, he thinks this could cause some problems during re-election

Announcer: W

Announcer 2: (inaudible)

Announcer: Yeah, that's why he launched the search. He believes it will harm his re-election effort.

Evans: Yeah. Well, I, but he's a friend of Barack

Announcer: I know.

Announcer 2: Yes.

Announcer: Hey I think in his h, heart and mind he said, "I'm gonna get this, bring this to a close. We're gonna..."

Evans: Well, that's

Announcer: "....fix this."

Evans: And that's exactly true, I mean

Announcer: Yeah.

Evans: I mean, I've known Neil for long (chuckles) long time and he

Announcer: What's

Evans: really, he's a left-wing nut. I mean, I love him, but uh, yeah, he was, he was, you're exactly right. He was hoping this would get rid of this problem and that he would prove that he was born in the United States. Unfortunately it backfired on him.

Announcer: Somebody's lying.

Evans: Movie news. George Clooney....

END OF TRANSCRIPTION

BZ, just because somebody told you something does not make it compulsory that you believe them. Here are questions about the search warrant story that you might have asked before repeating it:

Who was the judge or magistrate that issued the search warrant?

What did the warrant specifically identify as the item(s) of evidence being sought?

Is a search warrant a public record in Hawaii? If so, before telling the public that such a search warrant existed, one should do a public records search. Did you?

You proffer a transcript of what this guy suppoaedly said. Did you hear the guv's voice actually saying his minions executed a search warrant on the hospitals?

Do you now believe that a search warrant was executed on the hospitals.

Like I said, there's more important and pressing matters to be dealt with in America. Why have we been wasting our time on this for over 2 years?

Madisonian, I said that according to Mike Evans Abercrombie told him he went in with a search warrant.

How can I get clearer than that? These are the words of these other people.

My point all along, from the first point that I started my blog so I could write about these things, has been that there should be a legal investigation since these "officials" are contradicting themselves and the laws all over the place. There's no way we can know what is true, because the people in charge of the records are giving us internally inconsistent stories about what records, if any, even exist. If that's not the time to investigate, then when is?

According to multiple audio recordings from all over the country, Mike Evans said he had spoken with Neil Abercrombie and Abercrombie had told him that there is no birth certificate in Hawaii for Barack Obama. Rather than focusing on me, focus on that. The governor of Hawaii - Obama's friend who wanted to prove that "birthers" are nuts as he's been calling us for the last 2 years - told his good friend Mike Evans that there is no birth certificate for Obama in Hawaii.

Supposing that Abercrombie is telling the truth this time, what would that mean that Obama, the media, the courts, Congress, etc have done to this country and to those of us who had the mere honesty to point out the discrepancies? What would it mean this country has done to Terry Lakin, who sits in jail right now because he wouldn't obey combat deployment orders from somebody he had every reason to believe could be an unconstitutional usurper, a domestic enemy of the Constitution he swore an oath to protect and defend from all enemies both foreign and domestic?

Is that something you're willing to play Russian roulette with?

Jeff Kuhner said that the media people he's spoken to know that something is very, very wrong with Obama's eligibility situation but they don't want to do anything about it because the enormity of what it would mean is more than they think the country can handle. They want to protect us from the truth, or from the fallout of that truth.

Know where else they protect people from the truth and the fallout of it? Iran. Cuba. China. Venezuela. Russia. That's what our media thinks we need to become. They believe that one person occupying the White House has brought us to the point that that's what we have to become.

This is about WAY, WAY more than just a person showing a piece of paper. It's about the rule of law. It's about truth. It's about everything America is about and everything we will become.

There is no more important issue than that. If we sell out all the above, we're left with N.O.T.H.I.N.G.

this is the biggest non issue to ever face this country. something needs to be done so that nothing can happen

If it's a non-issue, pass the bill and be done with it.

BZ, wasn't it Ronald Reagan who said "Trust but verify"? In regards to what Mr. Evans said, you did a whole lot of trusting but precious little verifying. See, in the American system the burden lies with whoever makes an assertion. The assertion that the Hawaii guv had a search warrant served on hospitals is unverified. Evans quotes Abercrombie, and no matter how many times Evans is heard over the air asserting that Abercrombie said something, what Evans says is, in court terminology, hearsay.

So how do you justify believing that a search warrant was served on the hospitals?

A threshold question is, under Hawaiian law are search warrants applicable only to criminal investigations, as in most jurisdictions? If so, how then would a search warrant seeking Barack Obama's BC fit the law? The officer making the affidavit asserting probable cause to justify a search warrant couldn't specify the BC as an item that would be evidence of criminal activity, because -- if such a BC were found at one of the hospitals -- it would surely be exculpatory, not incriminating.

So someone looking for evidence of criminal activity would be looking for the ABSENCE of a BC. How would one word that in an affidavit --"I expect NOT to find Obama's BC"? The item to be searched for would be the lack of a specific item! (Although if no birth records for Obama were to be found in one of the hospitals, that might merely indicate that the hospitals don't keep records of births for a half century, as this would just duplicate the work of a state agency officially charged with this task.)

Questions you might ask if you're really interested in learning whether a search warrant seeking Obama's BC was actually issued and executed:

Is at least some information in connection with a search warrant public record? If so, a freedom of information request would at least verify whether search warrants were served on the Honolulu hospitals in pursuit of Obama's BC.

Other information that might be available would be the law enforcement officer who swore the affidavit seeking the search warrant, the judge or magistrate who issued the search warrant, and even the specific item(s) sought with the search warrant.

Since you can't, or at least haven't, provided any evidence that any such search warrants were ever served, you have no justifiable reason to pass on to others the search warrant tale. (Mere assertion is NOT evidence.)

You didn't answer my challenge: Do you believe by at least a preponderance of evidence that search warrants were issued seeking Obama's BC? Yea or nay. I'll tell you my belief -- beyond a reasonable doubt, no such warrants have been issued.

Don't be shy about telling us what you believe.

I have no idea whether search warrants were issued or not and I don't really care whether they were or not; it's irrelevant to my point, which is:

We have contradictory statements from Hawaii officials regarding what records, if any, exist for Obama in Hawaii.

Stop avoiding that issue.

BZ, you are avoiding the issue. To refresh your memory, YOU brought up the alleged search warrant in the first place. You asserted, without qualification, that Gov. Abercrombie told Evans that the search warrant was issued. Thus you obviously believed Evans. Now if we assume Evans accurately quoted Abercombie, then we need to consideer whether Abercrombie told Evans the truth in this instance. By overwhelming logic, he must have, because to have lied and made up the search warrant tale, Abercrombie would have been hurting, not helping, his friend, Obama.

Now since you assumed Evans was telling the truth and accurately accurately quoted the guv, and by sheer logic, you should then believe Abercrombie was also telling the truth, then you have to assume the search warrant tale was true.

So I ask: WHERE"S YOUR EVIDENCE?

he has none, he just wants people to visit his site

The evidence is the audio recordings. Are you saying that Mike Evans lied on all those on-air interviews he made?

You must be either a lawyer or a poli sci professor. You don't seem to be getting my point: There are conflicting claims about what records, if any, exist in Hawaii for Obama.

(If you think Evans lied on all those interviews there's still Abercrombie's statement to an interviewer at http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorials/20110118_This_is_a_collaborative_endeav... that there's something actually written down in the State Archives. The only HDOH records which are authorized to be stored at the State Archives rather than at the HDOH office are COHB's that are at least 75 years old, or registrations of foreign births. Take your pick...)

Is that a problem for you? That is a problem to me and should be clarified by a legal investigation. That is what I am saying. You are not going to run me off onto an irrelevant goosechase. My point is simply that the claims that have been made raise serious questions about what is really going on.

And people who have been calling me crazy for the last year have had their eyes opened because of those claims from Obama's friend, Neil Abercrombie, who has been calling people like me idiots for the last 2 years and desperately wanted to prove us wrong.

Your point seems to be that either Evans or Abercrombie is a liar. Exactly! That's exactly why we need to know the TRUTH from the actual records and not just rely on the public statements of folks like Abercrombie, Fukino, Evans, etc. Keep hounding your issue if you want to, but if there wasn't a search warrant issued it only reinforces my point all the more. That's why I consider it irrelevant.

It is crazy for people to think that the qualifications of the person who holds the nuclear football should continue to be verified through "The Telephone Game" where the participants like Abercrombie, Evans, Lingle, Fukino, etc have stories that contradict each other and the law. The country means a heckuva lot more to me than that.

In case anybody didn't see the comments that Abercrombie made to the Star-Advertiser reporter, here's the portion C&P'ed directly from the article at http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorials/20110118_This_is_a_collaborative_endeav... . Does this sound to you like he found a legally valid birth certificate for Obama in the HDOH office, which would prove Obama to be Constitutionally eligible? (The whole rest of this post is from the article):

Q: You stirred up quite a controversy with your comments regarding birthers and your plans to release more information regarding President Barack Obama's birth certificate. How is that coming?

A: I got a letter from someone the other day who was genuinely concerned about it; it is not all just political agenda. They were talking on Olelo last night about this; it has a political implication for 2012 that we simply cannot have.

(Abercrombie said there is a recording of the birth in the State Archives and he wants to use that.)

It was actually written I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down ...

...What I can do, and all I have ever said, is that I am going to see to it as governor that I can verify to anyone who is honest about it that this is the case.

If there is a political agenda then there is nothing I can do about that, nor can the president.

BZ, no my point is not that either Abercrombie or Evans, but not both lied about the search-warrant-served-on-hospitals tale. If Evans told the truth, that Abercrombie said the search warrants were served, then Abercrombie logically also told the truth, because it would not make sense for him to just make up a lie that would hurt, not help, Obama.

Now if Evans lied, and just made up the search warrant story from the whole cloth, then Abercrombie would almost certainly have said nothing about any search warrant oen way or another.

But you keep backing away from the whole search warrant caper, which YOU introduced to this particular website. If it's an irrelevancy, you introduced the irrelevancy here. If it created a contradiction which you base your call to action on, it's a contradiction you magnified, even if someone else created.

See, if you would try to find evidence for such unlikely events as this, before accepting them as gospel, you could help damp down some of the contradictions you decry. Have the Honolulu newspapers reported on the search warrants served on the hospitals? Have officials of the two hospitals confirmed the searches? Has the governor confirmed to any source other than Evans that he ordered the searches?

I never presented it as gospel. I said that Mike Evans said Abercrombie told him this.

You're the one trying to make it out as gospel. My whole point is that nothing these people tell us CAN be gospel because if we take the claims at face value they contradict each other and/or the law. And that is precisely the problem.

If the story about checking the hospitals isn't true, why did Abercrombie and/or Evans lie about it? And does it bug you that they lied about it?

The only thing that really matters about what Abercrombie said (according to Evans) was that he looked in the 2 hospitals and didn't find anything. There wouldn't be any BC there anyway, since hospitals don't keep BC's after they are filed with the proper authorities. The reason Abercrombie checking the hospitals is even significant is because the only reason to check the hospitals is because there WASN'T anything at the HDOH office where it should be. If there was a BC at the HDOH office where it belonged, he didn't need to look at the hospitals OR the State Archive.

The fact that he claimed that the "investigation" found something in the Archive tells us that he didn't find anything at the HDOH where it should be.

Unless Evans is lying, Abercrombie told him he couldn't find a BC for Obama anywhere. Whether "all his powers as governor" includes the ability to get a search warrant, to set up an investigatory commission that could subpoena records, etc, is beside the point.

It's taken me over a year of dealing with Hawaii officials and laws, and I STILL can't be sure whether the Administrative Rules the HDOH claims are in effect actually are, since a document has surfaced claiming to follow a rule that isn't even IN the Admin Rules the HDOH has posted on their website. HI law requires the rules to be posted at all times on the HDOH website, but it was illegally hidden until a year after the election and we had to fight like crazy to get ANYTHING posted there. Now we don't even know if what they posted is truthful either. They have broken so many laws and rules there it's unbelievable. SOME of what they've done is documented on my blog.

After all that, suffice it to say that I'm not going to spend the next 5 years trying to get a straight answer on what the governor can do or has done to search for Obama's records. It's irrelevant to the issue at hand and only a legal investigation with subpoenas will ever get to the bottom of it anyway. I say that from experience.

Whatever it was that he did, he came out of it saying to the Star-Advertiser reporter that there was something written in the archive. And apparently he said more about that, too, that the reporter edited and paraphrased in a parenthetical statement rather than quoting verbatim for some reason.

And unless Evans lied, Abercrombie also came out of it telling his friend that there is no birth certificate for Obama in Hawaii. In one of the audio clips Evans claims Abercrombie told him there is no evidence at all that Obama was born in Hawaii.

And then within a day of the story breaking nationally Mike Evans said he hadn't even talked to Abercrombie at all and had never even claimed it (look again at that transcript, and there are others like it too; he's clearly claiming he talked to Abercrombie).

Within a day the AG was saying that not even Obama himself could ever disclose Obama's records because of the disclosure laws. Even if Obama was adopted he could get his records by petitioning a court. The only way Obama COULD NOT disclose the records is if there aren't any.

And within days Abercrombie asked the HDOH Director, Neal Palafox, to resign while his staff and Janice Okubo of the HDOH publicly lied about it, rumors of a medical billing fraud investigation on Palafox surfaced in the news even though Palafox had been told nothing about it, and Palafox resigned. Almost looks as if somebody might have threatened him with trumped-up billing fraud charges if he didn't fall on his sword. But then, without an investigation we'll never know for sure. Like everything.

Does any of that bug you? Does any of it suggest that maybe it would be good to double-check exactly what documentation, if any, exists in Hawaii?

BZ, I know you're aware that Evans'statement that Abercrombie told his friend "that there is no birth certificate for Obama in Hawaii. In one of the audio clips Evans claims Abercrombie told him there is no evidence at all that Obama was born in Hawaii." has been widely disputed.

Reason I'm skeptical of the so-called birthers is that so many have floated so much misinformation that I could check out without ever leaving the bedroom where my PC resides. Such as:

-- The alleged travel ban barring US citizens from visiting Pakistan in 1981. At least a handful of incumbent lawmakers and candidates (since elected) were asserting this in 2010, almost two years after it was indisputably debunked.

-- The alleged sealing of President Obama's records by executive order the first day he was in office.

-- Allegations that he never attended Columbia University, and skepticism that he attended Harvard Law.

-- Allegations that he sealed the Harvard Law journal copies for the year he was its president.(A neat trick, to confiscate thousands of copies of that publication from law school libraries and private law offices across the land, all without the public's noticing!)

-- Demands to see his grade reports from kindergarten on, often coupled with allegations made from the whole cloth that all previous presidents had released all such records. The only presidential grade report I've seen is Bush's Yale undergraduate transcript, which I have heard (don't know for sure) was released illegally without his permission.

Also, I think the following items are clearly established:

-- Two fake Kenyan birth certificates embraced by birthers before the documents sank beneath the waves beneath the weight of the lies they asserted.

The second one in particular I liked, because its provider reminded me of something a professor of mine used to say in his Jurisprudence class many years ago. When he wanted to stress a matter of law that was too obvious to be debated, this prof would say "You don't hire a convicted sex offender to hand out towels in the girls locker room."

Having Lucas Smith, a convicted document forger, verify the authenticity of a document is a perfect analogy.

-- The willingness to believe anything and anybody that support what they want to believe. For example, allegedly receiving aid as a foreign student attending Occidental; service as a CIA agent instead of attending Columbia.

-- Orly Taitz. 'Nuff said.

-- Phil Berg. Andy Martin. Ditto.

-- Justifying Lt. Col. Lakin's refusal to obey lawful orders. Someone, I think a Supreme Court justice, once said the constitution is not a suicide pact. But following Lakin's position to its logical conclusion, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would have become instantly illegal at noon Jan. 20, 2009, and no legitimate orders could have been issued to the poor soldiers on the battlefield, even to pack up and head home. No funds could have been legally spent to pay their passage home. The point about no suicide pact is that nothing that would bring about such an absurd and catastrophic result would be required by the constitution. Lakin sits in a Leavenworth cell not because of anything Obama did, but because of what he himself did.

-- Accepting a document from an Indonesian school as proof that Obama was adopted there (although the document doesn't say that) but rejecting what the very same document does plainly say, about his place of birth.

-- Contending that the Constitution's mention of the Law of Nations meant that the founding fathers adopted in toto Vattell's book of the same title -- including the right of the government to prescribe religious practices and to countenance the kidnapping of foreign women to bring home at times the domestic supply runs short.

-- The allegation that Obama has spent a million plus, or millions, hiding his birth certificate.

The facts: Roughly two-thirds of the 70-odd court cases filed over the birth certificate issue didn't name Obama at all, so he didn't need legal representation. In most of the others, U.S. attorneys and their staffs handled the work. Even at $1,000 an hour, you wouldn't get anywhere close to $1 million for all the work the private attorneys might reasonably have done. And the work has been light; the cases were highly repetitive, freeing the attorneys from the necessity of re-inventing the wheel every time they stepped into the courtroom.

Find a thread on FreeRepublic on the topic of the birth certificate to sample some out-of-this-world thought. For sure, what these folks perceive as reality has no resemblance to anything on the planet I live on.

Nice evasion.

A person can argue about whether Evans accurately relayed what Abercrombie said, but the audio is clear that he's claiming Abercrombie told him this. Evan's words: "Absolutely no proof, at all, that he was born in Hawaii"

Here's the transcript. Audio Recording From 1-18-2011 on KQRS. Recording at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD0U_jo2jQE

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT:

Mike Evans: I have a personal interest so I thought I'd share it with you. Former U.S. Congressman from Hawaii Neal Abercrombie has been a friend of mine for decades. In fact, when I first met Neal he was driving a cab in Honolulu. Well, Neal and I spent a lot of time together in Washington, D.C. during Obama's inauguration. Neal told me then that he was gonna run for governor of Hawaii, that he had..., that, that he'd had enough of being a U.S. Congressman. He also told me that...stories ... he had told me many times after Barack became famous, that he was in college going to the University of Hawaii, he was a friend of Barack Obama's dad and that he remembers Barack Obama as a little kid. He used to call him "Barry." In fact, I did a TV interview with, uh, Abercrombie at CSPAN the day after the inauguration and we had to ... we had to stop twice because he referred to the President as Barry which he ... after he did he said, "I can't do that, I gotta call him Mr. President."

Well, when Neal promised me that when he became governor, he was going to cut through all the red tape, he was going to get Obama's birth certificate once-and-for-all and end this stupid controvery, th.. that he was not born in the United States.

"Yesterday talking in Neal's office, Neal says that he searched everywhere using his power as governor at the Kapiolani Women's and Children's Hospital and Queen's Hospital, the only place that kids were born in Hawaii back when Barack was born, ... there is no Barack Obama birth certificate in Hawaii.

Second Speaker: Really?

Mike Evans: Absolutely no proof, at all, that he was born in Hawaii.

Third Speaker: Wow!

Mike Evans: Now he went out, he LOVES Obama. I mean he purposely did this to get rid of that, that question. Now, got some egg in the face. I mean now he admits publically that there is no birth certificate.

Second Speaker: Well,... there might be an addendum to that. There is the story there is a birth announcement. But it's been explained. His grandparents could called the newspaper and said, 'Hey! He, we kn..., our grandchild was born. And ah... he didn't have to be born in Hawaii for that. So its raising the issue again."

Mike Evans: Absolutely!

Second Speaker: ... after it seemed to be put to bed.

Mike Evans: And I asked him, I go, "Well, when do you remember when do you remember Barack? When's your first memory?" And he goes, 'I remember him playing, like, in the T-ball league.' And I go, "Well, when he was, like, five or six." And he goes, "Something like that." And I go, "Well, what about before that?" And he goes, "Well, I don't really remember him much before that." which I thought was very odd.

Second Speaker: Really?

Mike Evans: Anyway.

Second Speaker: I have a question for you.

Mike Evans: Yeah?

Second Speaker: According to ...ah, ah, ... federal law, and I don't know constitution law, but I assume it would be ... ah ... why is he allowed to be president of the United States then if he can't prove he is a U.S. citizen?

Mike Evans: Well that's ... that's...

Second Speaker: Was he born here? That's the big question.(?/inaudible) That's weird.

Mike Evans: And now now Abercrombie is the first to say that he he, that Abercrombie is a Obama lover ...

Second Speaker: Right

Mike Evans : ... that he's concerned that ... that is really going to be an issue during the election, re-election.

Second Speaker: So it has taken off as a, a big story again, huh?

Mike Evans: Yes.

Second Speaker: Well, well, what's interesting about it is that this guy attacked people who questioned that he was born in Hawaii just a few weeks ago.

Mike Evans: Neal did.

Second Speaker: Yes.

Mike Evans: Yeah, I mean ... I'm tellin' ya'. Neal and I are buddies and during this whole inauguration when I was in Washington for those a ten days, I spent a lot of time with Neal, and anytime anybody would come up and bring this up, you're right, Neal was almost militant about it. "I remember him as a kid. He's from Hawaii, born and raised ..." so, needless to say, I'm sure he was shocked more than anybody by this whole thing.

Second Speaker: Don't you have to produce ... papers that say you were

Mike Evans: You'd think so. You'd have to, wouldn't cha'?

Second Speaker: Well, there's been a certificate of Live Birth, but that's being questioned too, because you don't have to ... it's not the official Birth Certificate.

Mike Evans: There'd have to be one at the hospital, signed by the doctor certifying birth by a ... a birth. And there isn't that.

Second Speaker: You're kidding me.

Mike Evans: It's like aaaa... baptism papers. It's not worth the paper it's written on, really.

Second Speaker: Well, Mike, how hard would it be to find out what doctors were on then.

Mike Evans: Apparently he can't find any of that ... that says that they were there.

END TRANSCRIPT

_______________________________________________

Point proven...you guys have nothing better to do than debate this nonissue. Can't you be out helping your neighbor, your family, your friends, the church, the homeless, a child that needs a coat, food, etc.

THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT PRESSING MATTERS IN AMERICA!!!

And why are you arguing this if it is so unimportant? It makes sense for me to spend time on this because I believe it is critical. But if it makes no difference, as you say, then why not just pass the bill and be done with it?

Those who say the bill shouldn't be passed because it's not important enough to spend time on are illogical. If it's not worth the time, then why is Obama wasting our time on what shouldn't even be a hiccup in the process? If it's not worth spending time on, why not just pass it and be done with it?

People who believe that Obama is eligible or that the current way of not checking eligibility is just fine have no reason to resist a common-sense bill like this. Look at the comments of Mike Evans and the announcer in that last interview:

"Second Speaker: Don't you have to produce ... papers that say you were

Mike Evans: You'd think so. You'd have to, wouldn't cha'?"

That pretty much sums up the thoughts of the reasonable people in this country. The others have an agenda. The only reason to FIGHT this bill is because you fear that "natural born citizen" actually DOES mean a person born on US soil to 2 US citizens, or you fear that Obama or any other particular candidate you like really DON'T have legal documentation of eligibility, as Obama's friend Neil Abercrombie, the elections office worker, and the HDOH have been saying.

If passed, "For 2012, the bill would perhaps rule out the current President of the United States, and it would definitely rule out Panama military-base-born 2008 GOP presidential nominee Arizona Sen. John McCain and all of the many other natural-born American citizens who don't possess a long-form original birth certificate."

So would we be having this conversation if McCain were President? Probably not...

I think this sums it up. At least Obama was born in America and not in Panama.

http://ezinearticles.com/?President-Barack-Obamas-Long-Form-Birth-Certificate&id...

When you contact the state of your birth and ask for a certified copy of your birth certificate they send you a particular type of "certificate of live birth" (each state's forms are particular to that state.) In Hawaii they send you the type of document that Obama put up. That's it. There's no other form. There's nothing he's hiding. In fact, as mentioned at the beginning of this article, he's shown more than any President in history.

When you ask for your birth certificate there's no box you check for "short form" or "long form." There's only one official birth certificate document in a state at any one time (these forms may change over the years of course, which is why some people show examples of forms with more or less information on them, even in the same state.)

So as you can see there's absolutely nothing to this so called "issue." It's a complete fantasy in the minds of some conspiracy theorists known as "birthers" who are looking for any sort of loophole they can find to overturn the democratic will of the American people. To me you can't get anymore Anti-American than that. If President Obama isn't their President, then they aren't Americans.

You don't have to like President Obama's politics (it's our right as Americans to disagree with the President) but you should at least respect the office and the fact that he won the election by nearly 10 million votes.

Rural Citizen, I've already addressed that several times here. There is video footage of a woman ordering a certified long-form birth certificate at the Hawaii DOH office and being told she would receive it in 2 weeks. That's at http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/some-tropical-truth/

And this bill actually allows a person to submit a COLB if their state of birth doesn't allow long-forms to be released (though it would be against FOIA if they refused to give a copy to the actual registrant, so it's mostly a matter of specifically requesting an actual copy of the long-form rather than a computerized abstract).

Even if Obama had to present a GENUINE (not forged) COLB it would be a step in the right direction. As I've said before, the HDOH has already indirectly confirmed in 2 different ways that what Obama has tried to pass off on the nation is actually a forgery.

As to whether this issue would be raised if McCain was the candidate - Leo Donofrio sued the NJ SOS because there were 3 candidates she put on the ballot without even checking Constitutional eligibility: McCain (who was born in Panama), Obama (whose father was not a US citizen), and Roger Calero (who was born in Nicaragua and is not even a US citizen).

The first people to bring up the eligibility issue were those who questioned McCain's eligibility. The courts refused to grant anybody standing so that the issue could be resolved; I despised that ruling just as I despise the rulings saying nobody had standing to challenge Obama's eligibility, or Calero's.

McCain presented his long-form birth certificate and Congress passed a non-binding resolution saying that he was a "natural born citizen" even though born outside the country because he had 2 citizen parents. I don't believe Congress has the authority to interpret the Constitution so their resolution means nothing, but it does show that parents' citizenship is not some side issue made up by a fringe group.

I don't know whether John McCain is eligibile to be president because SCOTUS has never told us the definition of "natural born citizen". That's one of the reasons we need to deal with this. If McCain isn't eligible I want to know that.

And it's actually the REPUBLICANS who may be confronted with this issue more than anybody. Arnold Schwartzneggar, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindahl, etc. would all be affected by that definition. The time to get a decision is now, rather than in the heat of an election. Mitt Romney could possibly be affected as well, for all we know.

It's not fair to the political parties or to the potential candidates to be operating without a functional definition. It's like going onto a football field without knowing the rules and knowing there's no referee. In short, it's borrowing trouble and that's exactly what we've had the last 2 years.

It makes no sense to kick the can further down the road. We need to deal with this sometime and there's no better time than now, before the government loses any more credibility and the people give up on any hope of integrity.

Find something else more productive.